Monday, December 2nd 2013

AMD A10-7850K and A10-7700K APU Specifications Detailed

Specifications of two of AMD's top next-generation APUs, the A10-7850K and A10-7700K, were leaked to the web, revealing an incremental or evolutionary upgrade over the 6000 "Richland" series. To begin with, the two are based on the 28 nm "Kaveri" silicon. Straightaway we find that AMD hasn't been able to catch up with Intel's 22 nm leap for close to two years. All that it manages is to bring the rated TDP of the overclockable "K" chips down to 95W, from the traditional 100W. "Kaveri" puts three of AMD's recent innovations in CPU and GPU on one chip - "Steamroller" CPU micro-architecture, "Graphics CoreNext" GPU architecture, and hUMA (heterogeneous Uniform Memory Access), a technology that allows the CPU and GPU to access the same portion of memory simultaneously.

"Steamroller" features the same component hierarchy and basic design as its predecessors "Piledriver" and "Bulldozer," in which clumps of two cores that feature dedicated and shared number-crunching resources, called modules, make up the basic units of a processor. "Kaveri" features two such modules, and hence features four CPU cores. "Kaveri" misses out on an L3 cache cushioning transfers between the modules, and other uncore components on the APU yet again, and each module features a 2-megabyte L2 cache at its last level, totaling the L2 cache amount to 4 MB on "Kaveri." The integrated memory controller features a 128-bit (dual-channel) DDR3 memory interface, with support for standards as high as DDR3-2133 MHz on some models. The PCI-Express root complex complies with the newer PCIe gen 3.0 standard, as do we imagine the A-Link (chipset bus). AMD introduced huge changes with the GPU component.

47 percent of the die-area of "Kaveri" is occupied by its GPU, which is designed to restore AMD's competitiveness with Intel's Iris Pro 5000 series. The GPU is based on AMD's "Graphics CoreNext" (GCN) micro-architecture. Physically, there are 512 stream processors present on the chip, arranged in 8 GCN compute units (CUs). Other specifications include 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GPU supports technologies AMD introduced with its Radeon R7-260X graphics card, including TrueAudio. The GPU supports DirectX 11.2, OpenGL 4.3, and Mantle. It's capable of handling 4K Ultra HD video.

Among the two parts detailed today are the A10-7850K flagship, and the A10-7700K. The A10-7850K features CPU clock speeds of 3.70 GHz, with 4.00 GHz TurboCore frequency, the GPU with all its 512 stream processors unlocked, and GPU clock speeds of 720 MHz. The A10-7700K, on the other hand, offers CPU clock speeds of 3.50 GHz, with 3.80 GHz TurboCore frequencies, and cut-down GPU with just 6 compute units, 384 stream processors, and 24 TMUs clocked at 720 MHz. Both chips are expected to be priced under $150, when they go on sale this January. AMD "Kaveri" APUs are compatible with the newer socket FM2+ motherboards characterized by black-colored CPU sockets, and thicker pins. FM2+ motherboards themselves offer backwards-compatibility with older "Richland" and "Trinity" APUs.Source: ProHardware.hu
Add your own comment

50 Comments on AMD A10-7850K and A10-7700K APU Specifications Detailed

#1
TheinsanegamerN
by: MikeMurphy
Don't forget that some of these APUs double as a mobile part. We all love extra cache, and we'd all like more ROPs, but AMD needs to balance the die area and power consumption with cost considerations.

Having used a A8-3850 and A8-3870k I can assure you that these APUs are very capable. Fast DDR3 and the upcoming DDR4 will help alleviate bandwidth problems. Future of DDR4 is very promising. Sideport memory makes no sense from a cost perspective.

I'm glad AMD is focusing on the APU. Once the GPU side is purposed with CPU-compute tasks we'll see an interesting shift in performance.
two problems. 1. if they dont have enough ROP's, then the apu will not be able to drive a high resolution display. thus, the apu will remain in only cheap, low end laptops, not the nicer ones. Cost consideration is good and all, but when it results in poor performance, well, just ask AMD's CPU division how well that has worked for them. 2. ddr4. when is it coming out? this article makes no mention of a ddr4 controller, and ddr4 memory is nowhere to be seen. wasnt it supposed to come out by now, or am i missing someting?
Posted on Reply
#2
Popocatepetl
by: brandonwh64
Why in the hell can't they not atleast give this chip 8MB L3 cache???
Because 8 MB of L3 cache occupies about as much die area as one module (= 2 cores) together with its local L2 cache.

Do you REALLY want a single module APU with 8 MB of L3 cache that does fugg all in most cases ? (and will do even less with only one module to feed)
Posted on Reply
#3
Tatty_One
Super Moderator
by: TheinsanegamerN
two problems. 1. if they dont have enough ROP's, then the apu will not be able to drive a high resolution display. thus, the apu will remain in only cheap, low end laptops, not the nicer ones. Cost consideration is good and all, but when it results in poor performance, well, just ask AMD's CPU division how well that has worked for them. 2. ddr4. when is it coming out? this article makes no mention of a ddr4 controller, and ddr4 memory is nowhere to be seen. wasnt it supposed to come out by now, or am i missing someting?
You are missing the point a little, these APU's will not only be found in "Cheap Low end laptops", some of course will but they are more than capable contenders in the mid ranged business solutions, beween the 2 thats where 75% of the profits are, these are not desktop enthusiast solutions, I can say that they run 1440P monitors very well, my daughter has an A8 5800K and it all works well, she does not play demanding games, just the odd bit of non intensive gaming plus movies and that is pretty much what they were desiged for.
Posted on Reply
#4
brandonwh64
Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!
by: Popocatepetl
Do you REALLY want a single module APU with 8 MB of L3 cache that does fugg all in most cases ? (and will do even less with only one module to feed)
I have no clue what this means. What I am asking is for a FX-4350 with a 8670D, is that too much to ask for?
Posted on Reply
#5
Tatty_One
Super Moderator
by: brandonwh64
I have no clue what this means. What I am asking is for a FX-4350 with a 8670D, is that too much to ask for?
In a word yes, the CPU would probably not fit in the existing AM3+ socket.
Posted on Reply
#6
Slomo4shO
I wonder which GPU these chips can hybrid-crossfire with...
Posted on Reply
#7
MikeMurphy
by: TheinsanegamerN
two problems. 1. if they dont have enough ROP's, then the apu will not be able to drive a high resolution display. thus, the apu will remain in only cheap, low end laptops, not the nicer ones. Cost consideration is good and all, but when it results in poor performance, well, just ask AMD's CPU division how well that has worked for them. 2. ddr4. when is it coming out? this article makes no mention of a ddr4 controller, and ddr4 memory is nowhere to be seen. wasnt it supposed to come out by now, or am i missing someting?
These do drive high-resolution displays. These aren't designed for high-resolution gaming, but will do fine at 720p or 768p for newer titles. Gaming performance is adequate for most people out there.

ROPs seem to match the APU's capability with respect to memory bandwidth constraints on resolution. Why add ROPs if the memory bandwidth won't support higher resolution gaming anyways?

I expect DDR4 to arrive in the middle of 2014. More uncertain is when CPUs will arrive with DDR4 support.
Posted on Reply
#8
TheinsanegamerN
by: Tatty_One
You are missing the point a little, these APU's will not only be found in "Cheap Low end laptops", some of course will but they are more than capable contenders in the mid ranged business solutions, beween the 2 thats where 75% of the profits are, these are not desktop enthusiast solutions, I can say that they run 1440P monitors very well, my daughter has an A8 5800K and it all works well, she does not play demanding games, just the odd bit of non intensive gaming plus movies and that is pretty much what they were desiged for.
they might work well for business, but how many office computer have AMD chips? laptop wise, lenovo has two, the 15 inch edge and a single 11 inch x series. everything else is intel. dell is all intel. hp has 14 laptops with amd, but 77 intel machines. toshiba has 14 AMD laptops as well, but 145 intel models.

at least where I work, we have 14000 computers, and there is exactly ONE AMD machine., my optiplex 740. everything else is intel. AMD might be good for the business world, but OEMs dont seem to cooperate.
Posted on Reply
#9
Melvis
by: brandonwh64
Why in the hell can't they not atleast give this chip 8MB L3 cache???
Because L2 is better then L3. You only see lots of L3 cache on chips these days because its cheaper to manufacture, otherwise there be lots of L2 cache on chips like the core 2 days.
Posted on Reply
#10
Tatty_One
Super Moderator
by: TheinsanegamerN
they might work well for business, but how many office computer have AMD chips? laptop wise, lenovo has two, the 15 inch edge and a single 11 inch x series. everything else is intel. dell is all intel. hp has 14 laptops with amd, but 77 intel machines. toshiba has 14 AMD laptops as well, but 145 intel models.

at least where I work, we have 14000 computers, and there is exactly ONE AMD machine., my optiplex 740. everything else is intel. AMD might be good for the business world, but OEMs dont seem to cooperate.
Pepsico for a start, my daughter did a 1 year internship whilst doing her IT degree, not their server/desktops but laptops yes, my point being that the market share of laptops is in the cheap to mid range products, the whole point of this CPU is to give a little grunt with reasonable graphics at a low price and it does that, whether IGP will give AMD enough profit is doubtful I agree but this will fill a space, maybe not your or my space, or in fact most of the people here but previous AMD APU sales, especially over the last year or so suggest it will.
Posted on Reply
#11
NeoXF
by: MikeMurphy
I'm glad AMD is focusing on the APU. Once the GPU side is purposed with CPU-compute tasks we'll see an interesting shift in performance.
Finally someone who comments on what APU are ACTUALLY about.
Posted on Reply
#12
_JP_
by: NeoXF
Finally someone who comments on what APU are ACTUALLY about.
Which was the idea the 1st time around. And there's still the issue of not being able to use the iGPU if one adds a discrete card.
by: Melvis
Because L2 is better then L3. You only see lots of L3 cache on chips these days because its cheaper to manufacture, otherwise there be lots of L2 cache on chips like the core 2 days.
Of course L2 is better than L3, performance-wise, but having L3 has proven to be useful for current CPUs. If anything, it's another layer before resorting to comparatively-slow RAM.
by: Popocatepetl
Because 8 MB of L3 cache occupies about as much die area as one module (= 2 cores) together with its local L2 cache.

Do you REALLY want a single module APU with 8 MB of L3 cache that does fugg all in most cases ? (and will do even less with only one module to feed)
Depends on how large it is and how it is implemented (per core vs. per module vs. shared). Engies take care of that.
by: Slomo4shO
I wonder which GPU these chips can hybrid-crossfire with...
I bet it's between Oland and Bonaire.
Posted on Reply
#13
Hood
I really was considering these upcoming chips for some budget builds, but the more I read, the less I like the idea. An i3 is a better choice in every way, and it's more expensive for a good reason (because you get what you pay for). Intel's HD 4400 on-chip graphics is very capable for everything except high-end gaming, and with a dGPU it won't bottleneck at the CPU like an APU will. Only the technically (or financially) challenged would try to do serious gaming on an iGPU anyway, so the APU is really the worst of both worlds - crappy compute performance + an iGPU that's underwhelming for any serious gaming, and overkill for everything else, at the expense of die area for more cores or L3 cache. They should quit marketing these towards gamers and relegate them to the office market where they belong. For that limited usage scenario, you can build a cheaper system with an APU, but I'd still rather use a Pentium if my budget was that small.
Posted on Reply
#14
NeoXF
by: Hood
I really was considering these upcoming chips for some budget builds, but the more I read, the less I like the idea. An i3 is a better choice in every way, and it's more expensive for a good reason (because you get what you pay for). Intel's HD 4400 on-chip graphics is very capable for everything except high-end gaming, and with a dGPU it won't bottleneck at the CPU like an APU will. Only the technically (or financially) challenged would try to do serious gaming on an iGPU anyway, so the APU is really the worst of both worlds - crappy compute performance + an iGPU that's underwhelming for any serious gaming, and overkill for everything else, at the expense of die area for more cores or L3 cache. They should quit marketing these towards gamers and relegate them to the office market where they belong. For that limited usage scenario, you can build a cheaper system with an APU, but I'd still rather use a Pentium if my budget was that small.
Come again?

All I read was "Intel rules, F AMD". At least be less subtle next time.
Posted on Reply
#15
ParhamT64
AMD is doing wrong.it would be best if AMD focuses on AM4 soucket and Phenom iv x12 because it can accelerate Intels Broadwell with Kaveri APUs but it can't accelerate Intel SkyLake even with Carrizo APUs so if AMD focuses on AM4 soucket. The company can create 25nm 12 and 16 core CPUs with just 77W TDP and clock of 6GHz or more than 6GHz and in the future it can make AM5 soucket with 24 and 32 core CPUs with 12nm and 154W TDP and Intel will be fucked by the year 2020.
Also DDR3 2133OC is not enough, AMD should use DDR5 Memories to win from intel in the year 2015.
a10 5800k: 8rops, 48TMUS @800mhz
this new a10 7850k only: 8rops, 32TMUS @720
again no L3 cache and only 4mo on L2
I think the biggest problem of this APU isn't its GPU part but CPU part.
AM4+ would be stronger than FM2+ so a CPU is stronger and faster than an APU, APUs are mostly GPUs not CPUs but they aren't even a good GPU because everyone I see has an Intel Core i7 4770k for gaming,not AMD A10 6800k or 5800k, and I like my own AM3+ FX 8350 CPU due to A10 6800k APU.
Ten A10 6800k APUs are not faster than One 8350 Vishera CPU even if they would be overclocked.
do AMD wants to kill Intel or Be killed by Intel?
APUs are not the solution.
Posted on Reply
#16
Tatty_One
Super Moderator
by: ParhamT64

APUs are not the solution.
All i would simply say to this point is that they sell, do you think they would just continue to flush good money down the toilet through Llano >> Trinity >> Richland and so on if they didn't make money? There is little point in making comparisons with Piledriver, they are completely different markets and segments, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a tractor :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#17
Goodman
Lots of "old" threads getting "resurrected" lately... by people with only 1 post...
Trolls are getting better much better these days... just an observation...

Anyhow as for me I think APU's are great possibly the best thing for people that doesn't games at all or very little or for HTPC
APU's will be my next PC build as I hardly play games anymore & mostly surf the internet , FB , Youtube , etc...
It would suit me just fine for my occasional gaming @1080
Posted on Reply
#18
ParhamT64
by: Tatty_One
All i would simply say to this point is that they sell, do you think they would just continue to flush good money down the toilet through Llano >> Trinity >> Richland and so on if they didn't make money? There is little point in making comparisons with Piledriver, they are completely different markets and segments, it's like comparing a Ferrari to a tractor :rolleyes:
Making money isn't the main purpose, remember that fastest AMD CPUs will take advantage from fastest APUs so Performance is the aim not money! If a CPU has more performance, so more people will buy it and AMD can earn more money.
Posted on Reply
#19
Tatty_One
Super Moderator
by: ParhamT64
Making money isn't the main purpose, remember that fastest AMD CPUs will take advantage from fastest APUs so Performance is the aim not money! If a CPU has more performance, so more people will buy it and AMD can earn more money.
Making money is the ONLY purpose, performance is just a route to it, without the investment (money) you cannot get the Research & Development required to get the performance.......... the biggest markets in CPU's and graphics cards are not the high end performance segments, the majority want value for money.
Posted on Reply
#20
NeoXF
by: ParhamT64
AMD is doing wrong.it would be best if AMD focuses on AM4 soucket and Phenom iv x12 because it can accelerate Intels Broadwell with Kaveri APUs but it can't accelerate Intel SkyLake even with Carrizo APUs so if AMD focuses on AM4 soucket. The company can create 25nm 12 and 16 core CPUs with just 77W TDP and clock of 6GHz or more than 6GHz and in the future it can make AM5 soucket with 24 and 32 core CPUs with 12nm and 154W TDP and Intel will be fucked by the year 2020.
Also DDR3 2133OC is not enough, AMD should use DDR5 Memories to win from intel in the year 2015.
a10 5800k: 8rops, 48TMUS @800mhz
this new a10 7850k only: 8rops, 32TMUS @720
again no L3 cache and only 4mo on L2
I think the biggest problem of this APU isn't its GPU part but CPU part.
AM4+ would be stronger than FM2+ so a CPU is stronger and faster than an APU, APUs are mostly GPUs not CPUs but they aren't even a good GPU because everyone I see has an Intel Core i7 4770k for gaming,not AMD A10 6800k or 5800k, and I like my own AM3+ FX 8350 CPU due to A10 6800k APU.
Ten A10 6800k APUs are not faster than One 8350 Vishera CPU even if they would be overclocked.
do AMD wants to kill Intel or Be killed by Intel?
APUs are not the solution.
What the ...!? Hmm, do I really want to bother breaking down the BS that this post is? Damn it, guess so...

Firstly, what the f*** is DDR5, or FM4+ or 90% of that post!? Why are we talking about the distant future?

Secondly, Radeon HD 7660D (A10-5800K) has 24 TMUs, not 48, R7 2xx (A10-7850K) has 32 TMUs (supposedly), and 16 ROPs.

Thirdly, the rest is just jibberish, so I'll stop here.
Posted on Reply
#21
_JP_
DDR5 in 2015?
So...what? GDDR4 all over again?
Nah, don't think so.

APUs/Athlons are fine. If you need more, get a FX.
Posted on Reply
#22
tnlich
I been reading some of your comments an I don't understand .. It baffles me. You are griping over a APU speeds etc etc. AMD has been trying to master this for years. ANYONE REMEMBER THE OLD 64 FX chipset back in the day? YEP!!!. Was a FAIL attempt of APU back in the day. Now . Well well. Let me enlighten you. The Whole APU thing is about Hybrid cross Firing. For instance the A10 6000 series was Hybrid with what ? the 6800 and 7700 video cards? Did good performance. Although the cards was crap ISH they outperformed a lot out there and the Hybrid cross fire was great. Now the 10 7800 and 7700 is coming out. I myself have a 7870 that is just itching for this 7800 APU. You see AMD did 2 great things . 1 is put a intergrated
video card either on the motherboards or into the CPU. Now since the R9 and R& came out they said Ok you have a a 7700or a7870 or 7900 card out there. Yu can now cross fire with the R9 and R7. This is the whole point of the APU. Other than selling it to Sony and Xbox for consoles. Its all going to be inter exchangeable.

Here is the proof (http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-7000-radeon-r200-series-mixed-crossfire-testing_126124)

Now think about the possibilities. I myself want a APU 7800 with my MSI 7870 Hybrid cross fire.. Because at 4 gigs of 4 core and hybrid cross fire of 7870. its going to blast away at the Price of a Dozer system with a dedicated video card and also will out preform in a lot of ways a 8000 series dozer with a dedicated setup. Not in the CPU area but the video will and I will save about Ohhh 200 dollars in the build? yea? Ah well. BLAST AWAY TROLLS!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW I have a 4core 4100 setup with 990FX m board a6100 setup with a 990fx also a 8150FX with a sabertooth setup. Start Talking about how badass the Dozer setup is.. YEA!!! you have ben PRE Face palmed. =) Merry Xmas and have a nice day =)

by: Slomo4shO
I wonder which GPU these chips can hybrid-crossfire with...
Read my post and Link
Posted on Reply
#23
shinobi1028
by: Dj-ElectriC
I... have to agree.

Look guys. When looking at those APUs you gotta ask yourself:

Who will use those? The ones who will game? The ones who will work?

I think the biggest problem of this APU isn't its GPU part but CPU part.

You see, nowdays when somebody want a good CPU for all uses + HD movies now and then he will buy a core i3 with higher per-core performance.

A gamer who likes some gaming? most chances are that he will buy an i3 or a pentium dual-core + a 80-100$ dedicated graphics card. he will have higher per-core performance and much higher GPU power.

If you're going to have an APU, make it worth your money, at least for some uses. Have an "ok" per-core performance? combine with a serious GPU power for lite-gaming scenarios.

At this time the GPU isn't strong enough for serious 2013 gaming (even at medium settings) but way "too" strong for any other GPU use like movies and 2D indie games.

I see this everyday with costumers.

My 2 cents.
I use Apu what's wrong with it.. Man let me tell you something about computers people buy what they want .. I am not fan of any computer intel or Amd or any other company I see for Gpus. The way I look at it if I get it to work it works if I want to buy APu I can. I have a10 6800 I play movies just fine with 4 gigs I am going to finish my build later and add video card....Only reason I like AMD is because I know what I am doing when I build computers I can make my build work for me and my gaming.. I am going to update again buy another board and test on the FX 8350 I still like my APu :). Then again I never once spend over 1100 bucks no matter what I been building computers since I was 18 now 34 and never once my computer failed to play my games...
Posted on Reply
#24
Hood
by: NeoXF
Come again?

All I read was "Intel rules, F AMD". At least be less subtle next time.
Sorry if I was too harsh on AMD, but I just built both an A8-6600K system and an i3-4130 system in the last 2 months (for friends), so I think I'm entitled to an opinion. The APU wasn't terrible, and it's iGPU was impressive, just that it felt sluggish doing ordinary tasks that require heavy CPU use. The i3 felt much snappier, but it's HD 4400 iGPU was weak compared to the APU (so I stuck an old GTX 460 in it, and it came alive).
My main reason to prefer the Intel system is the quality of hardware, drivers and software, a result of billions spent in development and validation, money AMD has never had. Nobody's perfect, but Intel comes closer than AMD, in my experience.
So yeah, Intel rules, but I don't say F AMD, they're on the right track, and getting better. I want them to succeed, because competition benefits the consumer.
Posted on Reply
#25
shinobi1028
Check out this build I am working on its AMD brand...http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231497 The ram .The cpu http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231497. The board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128514. The last one is the Graphic card http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150702. ITs not intel but it will get the job done with gaming :).. The other mother board I wanted sold out :( so I picking that one up soon... So that's my future set up for gaming :D This is the case :D

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147158 :) pretty cool huh :) Well good night going to bed Take care man have fun
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment